No. And a Christian baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Let me put it this way: if a homosexual couple asks for a wedding cake from a Christian baker, and the baker refuses, then I'm OK with it, because preparing the cake would endorse/condone something that violates the baker's religious beliefs. But if the homosexual couple in question simply asks for a dozen donuts and the baker refuses, then that would clearly be discrimination. Providing donuts, cookies, etc. for an LGBT couple is different from baking a wedding cake for them, because one violated the baker's religious beliefs, and the other does not.

Simply put: if the requested service violates a specific tenet of the merchant's religious beliefs, then they should be allowed to refuse. But if it's a simple service like a dozen donuts, cookies, etc., or a simple meal, or something of that sort, then they should not be allowed to discriminate.

Translation: business owners should be allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.

Nice try, but I would argue that any business that provides a service to people is by definition public, and therefore can be regulated by the government. It doesn't have to be government owned for the government to pass laws regarding their conduct.

The difference between a Gay wedding and a Nazi one is that denying a Nazi wedding is a matter of free speech and not flat out discrimination, and I do believe most everyone here would agree that the business owner has the right to limit free speech on the property that they have no right to own.

Translation: business owners should be allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.

Nice try, but I would argue that any business that provides a service to people is by definition public, and therefore can be regulated by the government. It doesn't have to be government owned for the government to pass laws regarding their conduct.

Just to clarify, it's services not products. And it has to be services that need to be done at-will. (This does not extend to housing obviously.) I can understand some disagreement there though, but I think that's a fair line.

I hate both discrimination and government forcing people to do things they don't want to do, because both are disasterous to society, but I don't think we have to choose between one or the other. Bigotry will still exist if there are laws against it, and societal pressure is a more powerful tool for shaping cultural attitudes towards things than government action ever will be.

I'm just opposed to the idea that government needs to actively punish something simply because it's "wrong," unless it's an objective crime (e.g. assault or theft--as terrible as bigotry is I don't think it counts) and I stay consistent with that admittedly "radical" conception of government. (Because I think it's correct.)

Then again...I sort of enjoy seeing people who, for so long, argued that something (marraige equality) shouldn't be allowed simply because their "morality" says it's wrong complain about getting punished because secular/objective morality says their behavior is wrong. "Shadenfreude" is the term.